+-

+-User
Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock
Members
Total Members: 1329
Latest: Paris Jones
New This Month: 10
New This Week: 4
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 97925
Total Topics: 7218
Most Online Today: 286
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 12
Guests: 118
Total: 130

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Scally Bob

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18
1
General Discussion / Re: Anthony Taylor - Arsenal v Liverpool
« on: Sun 11 Jan 2026 16:48 »
Quote from: gooner on Fri 09 Jan 2026 14:06
hi,

disappointing game all round for a number of reasons but AT did his ususal competent job - although there were chants of 'anthony taylor, it's all about you' towards the end.

the martinelli incident was very unsavoury and could/should have been more harshly punished (perhaps something can be done retrospectively?) however - and i'm in no way condoning his actions - i think we all get frustrated at the current epidemic of 'game management/time wasting/feigning injuries' and it was as a result of his frustrations, rather than any malice, that caused him to act as he did. perhaps this event might be a catalyst for change in controlling 'in play' time.

not the evening i was hoping for

regards,

gnr
Somewhat ironic that you think Martinelli may have been frustrated because of game management/time wasting/feigning injuries as Martinelli in my experience is one of the worst culprits for it. In this game he feigned injury trying to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty and he routinely goes to ground without any justification. I think a simpler explanation is that it was the conduct of a self-entitled brat with no consideration of the welfare of a fellow professional. His apology is worthless.

2
General Discussion / Re: Anthony Taylor - Arsenal v Liverpool
« on: Thu 08 Jan 2026 22:06 »
Liverpool have so many injuries they can hardly be blamed for playing the way they did. Arsenal rely on set pieces and Liverpool played intelligently enough to prevent them getting many.

Martinelli’s conduct at the end was a disgrace. Bradley was clearly badly injured so throwing the ball at him then manhandling him off the pitch was cowardly. Unfortunately it didn’t quite reach the threshold for violent conduct.

3
General Discussion / Re: Foul Throw-Ins
« on: Mon 29 Dec 2025 16:39 »
Simon Hooper gave a foul throw at Anfield against Wolves on Saturday. I didn’t see the offence (watching the drop zone) but he did an Eric Morecambe-esque dance to indicate one foot was off the ground.

4
General Discussion / Re: Stuart Attwell: Chelsea v Aston Villa
« on: Sun 28 Dec 2025 11:43 »
Quote from: olliebcafc on Sat 27 Dec 2025 20:29
I would probably say yellow for Sanchez too, forgot to mention it in the original post. Definitely not dogso so correct in that regard
I don’t know why it would be a yellow card. He slipped and it was totally accidental.

5
General Discussion / Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
« on: Tue 23 Dec 2025 17:24 »
Quote from: ajb95 on Tue 23 Dec 2025 16:45
Quote from: Scally Bob on Mon 22 Dec 2025 11:36
I think I’m the only poster who said the lunge and scissors challenge on Isak deserved a red card. It was excessive force and the evidence that it endangered an opponent isn’t debatable as Isak is being treated for a suspected fracture.

Was it simply ignored because the ball went into the net? In the middle of the pitch that would have been a red card although I’m not sure Saturday’s referee would have brandished one as he missed the first and only gave a second yellow for an act of violent conduct.

The administrators have already banned tackling now you want to ban blocking shots as well?
Tackling hasn’t been banned by anybody and nobody has suggested blocking shots should be banned eithe. That challenge which was excessive force didn’t block any shot and a goal was scored.

6
General Discussion / Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
« on: Mon 22 Dec 2025 11:36 »
I think I’m the only poster who said the lunge and scissors challenge on Isak deserved a red card. It was excessive force and the evidence that it endangered an opponent isn’t debatable as Isak is being treated for a suspected fracture.

Was it simply ignored because the ball went into the net? In the middle of the pitch that would have been a red card although I’m not sure Saturday’s referee would have brandished one as he missed the first and only gave a second yellow for an act of violent conduct.

7
General Discussion / Re: J BROOKS - Spurs v Liverpool
« on: Sun 21 Dec 2025 06:44 »
That’s the second time this season (the first by Gordon at Newcastle) that a referee has given a yellow for a blatant act of serious foul play on Van Dijk only to be bailed out by VAR. At elite level neither of those challenges should need VAR intervention.

I thought the referee allowed too much dissent and his tolerance level was ridiculously high. The foul by Betancur on Kerkez was an orange challenge but no card, Romero kicking Konate is violent conduct yet only a yellow and Richarlison grabbing Ekitike by the throat was just ignored. The scissor challenge that injured Isak was also ignored but just because the ball went in the net doesn’t mean it isn’t serious foul play.

For Thomas Frank to try and justify the conduct of his team is pathetic. They act like a Leeds team of the seventies but without any of their ability.

8
General Discussion / Re: Chelsea v Arsenal - Anthony Taylor
« on: Sun 30 Nov 2025 18:30 »
Quote from: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 30 Nov 2025 17:39
I have to say the behaviour of the players has been appalling in this game.

All this rolling around on the floor has been very unsavoury and Taylor hasn’t fallen for any of it so far.
Call it what it is: cheating. Trying to deceive match officials and get opponents punished or like Manchester City yesterday deliberately stopping play for phantom injury to allow coaching. Terrible.

9
General Discussion / Re: Sky Sports - Jamie O’Hara on M. Oliver
« on: Fri 21 Nov 2025 12:02 »
I've been subjected to this "expert" when in a friend's car coming home from matches. It's frankly astonishing that such an ill-informed individual is given airtime on a national radio station. It's no wonder officials at grassroots get so much abuse when people like him are allowed to spout their prejudices.

I don't remember him as a player at all. Presumably a journeyman within the M25?

10
General Discussion / Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
« on: Fri 14 Nov 2025 15:14 »
The whole situation is farcical.

https://x.com/timessport/status/1989317668038381784?s=46

11
General Discussion / Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
« on: Tue 11 Nov 2025 08:02 »
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 10 Nov 2025 22:09
Quote from: Scally Bob on Mon 10 Nov 2025 21:30
As a Liverpool supporter I’m naturally disappointed with the decision but don’t use it as an excuse for a deserved defeat. I’m sure I’ll be accused of wearing red-tinted glasses but here goes…..

I think from Kavanagh’s position his view would see Robertson directly in front of the goalkeeper. From the angle shown on television (which does not match the referee’s position) it’s clear that Robertson is not in the goalkeeper’s line of sight. There’s a video from behind the goal (which admittedly wouldn’t be available to VAR) that shows Donarumma having a completely uninterrupted view of the ball as it comes towards him. He also took a step to his right immediately before the ball was headed goalwards which although not relevant to a refereeing decision may explain why he didn’t get close to saving it.

The delay in raising the flag seemed longer than I’d expect and I did wonder if there was some doubt in the officials’ decision making.

Given the angle from which VAR would view the incident-and even this, like most refereeing decisions, is a subjective call-I thought VAR should have asked the referee to have a look at the monitor.

Of course the real answer is scrap VAR but unfortunately that genie is well and truly out of the bottle and ruining the game every week. In happier times a decision like this would have been grumbled about over a pint or two after the match and by the time we got home it would be a fading memory.

A very considered view, but you have used the words subjective call.  If it was a subjective call there's no possible way VAR can say it was a clear and obvious error therefore they have to stick with the on-pitch decision.  Had Stuart Burt not flagged it would be the same discussion with with a different outcome, the goal would have stood.
I meant that the decision by VAR whether to get involved or not is subjective. Another VAR in this instance may have thought that given the referee’s position he had made an error that should be reviewed on the monitor.

12
General Discussion / Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
« on: Mon 10 Nov 2025 21:30 »
As a Liverpool supporter I’m naturally disappointed with the decision but don’t use it as an excuse for a deserved defeat. I’m sure I’ll be accused of wearing red-tinted glasses but here goes…..

I think from Kavanagh’s position his view would see Robertson directly in front of the goalkeeper. From the angle shown on television (which does not match the referee’s position) it’s clear that Robertson is not in the goalkeeper’s line of sight. There’s a video from behind the goal (which admittedly wouldn’t be available to VAR) that shows Donarumma having a completely uninterrupted view of the ball as it comes towards him. He also took a step to his right immediately before the ball was headed goalwards which although not relevant to a refereeing decision may explain why he didn’t get close to saving it.

The delay in raising the flag seemed longer than I’d expect and I did wonder if there was some doubt in the officials’ decision making.

Given the angle from which VAR would view the incident-and even this, like most refereeing decisions, is a subjective call-I thought VAR should have asked the referee to have a look at the monitor.

Of course the real answer is scrap VAR but unfortunately that genie is well and truly out of the bottle and ruining the game every week. In happier times a decision like this would have been grumbled about over a pint or two after the match and by the time we got home it would be a fading memory.

13
General Discussion / Re: Michael Oliver: Liverpool v Man Utd
« on: Sun 19 Oct 2025 19:04 »
On my way home from the game now and still unhappy about the game not being stopped for a clear head injury. I thought Oliver was inconsistent throughout. What on earth was that drop ball? Why was there no sanction when Gravenberch was injured by a reckless challenge?

Liverpool were poor but the referee’s performance was worse.

14
General Discussion / Re: Anthony Taylor - BBC interview
« on: Fri 10 Oct 2025 17:24 »
It’s utterly ridiculous to expect perfection when the vast majority of decisions and non-decisions officials make are subjective. The introduction of VAR made this unrealistic expectation worse because it virtually guaranteed there would be no more mistakes.

However the lack of respect bordering on contempt for match officials is the real problem. Half-witted “experts” who frequently don’t know the Laws of the Game are free to criticise beyond what many consider reasonable comment and they do it with impunity. I rarely listen to TalkSport but a friend of mine has it on in his car and when we’re coming home from games the ignorance of the presenters is breathtaking. I also see Keys and Gray on occasion and they’re equally poor. Perhaps someone needs to remind them “their day” is long gone and the LOTG have been updated.

I’m a Liverpool supporter so Anthony Taylor frequently referees our games and I think he’s excellent: anyone who has never made a refereeing mistake has never refereed. Friends of mine accuse him of Manchester bias and there are many who claim his allegiance to Altrincham is false and he supports whichever Manchester team we’re playing. No doubt the cesspit that is social media is sticking the knife in too. It’s pathetic.

The Premier League and PGMOL should be more robust regarding the way officials are constantly unreasonably criticised and call these broadcasters to account.

15
General Discussion / Re: Jarred Gillett - Newcastle vs. Arsenal
« on: Sun 28 Sep 2025 20:32 »
Regarding the Pope challenge on Gyokeres. Just suppose there was an Arsenal player ahead of both of them so in an offside position and directly after the incident the ball goes to that player. Would he be adjudged offside as it wasn’t a deliberate play of the ball by Pope but merely a deflection? Pope didn’t play the ball, it just hit him. I thought the bar was supposed to be raised regarding clear and obvious too.

Penalty kick for me.

If PGMOL are telling officials that deflections off other parts of the body can’t result in handball aren’t they guilty of incorrect application of Law?

Don’t make it easy for us toiling lower down do they?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18